If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Comment

Ancinet, do not be so enthusiastic about NASA explanations. They are in accordance with the already existing physics. WHICH HAS WRONG FOUNDATION. Although the current technological evolution states otherwise. It's just a model, that you can not grasp except when you understand the fundamental errors, on which was founded the current science! I mean to go back before 1500, and to review everything in another scientific paradigm! Just my opinion!

Comment

Ancinet, do not be so enthusiastic about NASA explanations. They are in accordance with the already existing physics. WHICH HAS WRONG FOUNDATION. Although the current technological evolution states otherwise. It's just a model, that you can not grasp except when you understand the fundamental errors, on which was founded the current science! I mean to go back before 1500, and to review everything in another scientific paradigm! Just my opinion!

Where did you find connection between my posts and NASA explanations?

The fact that i'm member of this forum tells you that i don't believe in the mainstream science. And i never believed because their theories can't explain basically nothing.

Comment

Hello.
I just happen to have had a little bit more than an average experience with the Primer Fields video series and it's author Mr. David LaPoint. I was one of the first to see the series when it was originally released, and I have been investigating it ever since.
I happen to know someone OTHER than David who was in fact on David's team. Although he does have a few problems with the overall outcome of the endeavor, he does however agree that David has truly "got it." I have been working theoretically with Davids ideas for a while now, and although I seemingly sound as if I'm wandering a bit as I try and explain some of it, it is only for lack of ways to describe the phenomenon that are going on in ways that anyone can understand.
On those days when the words don't fail me, I have been able to explain in terms a ten year old can understand and agree that these concepts answer more questions than they leave. It has been amazing the eyes that open wide, as the minds start to wonder. And then, not the questions, but the answers come.
David's understanding of plasma structures in vacuum are pretty much straight on from what I've been able to figure out. His team was well ahead of the curve in virtually every aspect of plasma research, even if dealing with only cold plasma.
And although there are a few problems I've discovered in his representations of his idea, I have been able to gain a better (more accurate) understanding of what might be going on by discussions with another member of the team. (An example of this would be David's representation of the "little balls." His understanding of the concept of the individual "piece of energy" while correct, is never represented correctly in the illustrations as to movement, or "filament" formation. (Actually while working with this, I'm really starting to wonder if some of QM's string theory numbers aren't all over this. "Birkeland currents")
The other researcher admitted that David was never able to fully explain to them exactly how he thought the 'magnetic bowls" formed in space, the researcher stated that David always said, ..."I don't know, they just do." I believe this might be where some of the problems might arise. Because I have not been able to verify ANY of the claims he has made in regard to the magnetic field of a piece of matter being "curved," this does not mean that his theory is fundamentally flawed. I believe the same concepts can and do work just as well in a dipole structure.
Although I do not know how he was able to create the magnets used in the experiments or in the video series, I do have someone in the field working on it. (Supermagnetman.com) I do however have a very promising idea of how it IS done in space though. I believe his ideas relating to stellar formation are indeed correct in concept, and this CAN in fact be directly observed in Nature without the need for complex explanation.
I also believe that his assertion that stellar formation is an accurate tool for forming an understanding of atomic structure formation is also correct. With this understanding, I have been able to develop a complete theory on not only how matter is defined, but how it should be able to be measured as well. Within this understanding also are the concepts put forth by David on how the duality of light is observed in some particles, yet not in others. And a general understanding of gravity as well.
In the Primer Fields series. There were many representations that actually give an incorrect or incomplete explanation of the mechanisms taking place in his ideas of structure formation. One of the clearest of these would be his failure to describe the plasma structure, (and therefore his atomic structure) as being comprised of "many, many, little strings all wound up together, flipping around here and there kind of like a fast moving ball of many strings."
Davids patent for a "magnetic array" (http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/e...&maxRec=581529) leads one to also gain trust in his assertions relating to the potential of magnetic fields in the "bowl" configuration.
As to his assertions relating to light, particle duality, quantum mechanics, etc. These can not be denied. Not only do his understandings make sense, they account for many questions still left in modern physics and put them into elegantly simple concepts that can now be easily tested. I believe that not only can lights position be predicted, in some cases, it's very existence can even be foretold. (expected existence/stellar formation)
All in all, I believe that David IS correct in a majority (if not all) of his assertions. And that at the very least, his assertions are NOT part of some whacked out theory based on pseudo-scientific principles, nor are they some attempt at a "zero-point energy" scam, (some are) nor do I feel any of it was put forth with bad intent.
I have spoken with David directly on a couple of occasions, and have received answers to questions I've posed with direct honest responses from him. He has always been polite and willing to speak with me, which is quite gracious of him considering the fact that to him I would be a complete stranger. I have read and re-read all of the posts related to this man over the internet, and I believe the "personality problems" people have mentioned actually stem more from frustration of the time with many individuals that were attempting to openly criticize him without the "ear to understanding" that would've left many arguments deaf, or the true knowledge of the Gods behind them with which to adequately defend themselves in true scientific debate. Those that HAVE attempted to engage him publicly on a "peer review" level have found their questions answered on equal ground. Unfortunately, David went underground before many of these discussions could be continued to any great length.
Anyway. I just happened to notice the thread and I figured I might as well put my two cents worth in.